|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
 Posted - 03/29/2002 : 05:58:46
|
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 08:55:42 [Permalink]
|
I guess it depends. I think the most appropriate definition of honor in this instance is "to show respect for." The question then becomes, are these people to be judged by the degree they show respect for their principles, for my principles, for society's principles, to each other or some other standard? I guess the only way to be reasonably certain that the principles are being applied correctly is to use my own principles.
So, tentatively, from most honorable to least:
Jane
Bill
John
Bob
I'm not entirely comfortable with my choices because I'm something of a moral subjectivist but I'll go with that for now and give it some more thought.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr
|
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 09:05:42 [Permalink]
|
Very interesting!
My first thoughts:
Bob, of course, is a disgusting bastard, and is the least honorable (though not a rapist).
Jane is a selfish moron. She did two things that prove this. First, she had sex with Bob, to fulfil her desire to see John, thus being unfaithful to someone she loves. But the worst thing she did was to tell John about it. She should have kept her mouth shut to spare John the pain.
One hears about these people who tell their spouse that they had an affair 25 years ago. The cheater causes horrible pain to their spouse, simply to alleviate their own guilt. The epitome of selfishness.
Without knowing why Bill doesn't want to get involved (would a life-long, so-called good friend just flippantly decide that he didn't feel like it?), it's a bit hard to pass judgement, though on the surface it's a bit disappointing.
John has every right to his decision, if for the only reason that Jane bothered to tell him that she had sex with Bob.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 09:23:23 [Permalink]
|
Interesting. I won't give my answers yet except to say they are quite different from the two posted so far.
PhD hit an important point, I think, and one that I tried to bring home in my group of four: what is the definition of "honorable?" Posing that question caused problems in itself.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 10:08:04 [Permalink]
|
Honor- my definition- to be true. To be loyal to your country, to your friends, and to yourself (to thine own self be true) regardless of cost.
Now, who is 'most honorable'?
Probably John, unless Jane's reasons were rather important.
Jane, for she at least did not cause harm.
Bob.
Bill.
I would consider Bill the least honorable, because while Bob behaved in a rather slimy manner, he could be expected to.
One could say that Bob was merely asking for sex in exchange for service....and he did fulfill his end of the bargain.
However, he used coercion to obtain sex. And he potentially placed Jane's life at risk.
However, Bill abandoned and betrayed his friend. Compare to Jane, who merely betrayed her lover, or to Bob, whose obligation to Jane was merely that of one human to another. Bill was obligated to her both as a fellow human and as a friend. John merely made a decision, and one that is to be expected.
Interesting question, Garrette. However, Jane's reason is of paramount importance. I assumed that it was not a matter of life or death, since she had time to ask Bill for advice....
Were it actually one of life or death, or somthing of simular importance, Jane would be the most honorable, and Bob would be the least.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Ia Cthulhu! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 10:16:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now, who is 'most honorable'?
Probably John, unless Jane's reasons were rather important.
I agree, but since we were told the reason did not matter, I did not consider it.
quote:
Jane, for she at least did not cause harm.
What, other than harm to John, did her telling him about her sex with Bob do?
quote:
I would consider Bill the least honorable, because while Bob behaved in a rather slimy manner, he could be expected to.
But as with Jane's reason for crossing the river, Bill's reason for not getting involved would be equally important to judging him in this.
Was there a football game that he really wanted to watch? Or was his mother dying, and he needed to deal with that/get to the hospital?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 10:21:50 [Permalink]
|
Amazingly similar to the 'negotiations' that went on in our four person group.
Remember that I did not create the scenario.
Keep in mind that this was a training session on negotiations. The scenario is not designed with the purpose of getting you to think about honor but to stimulate friction that must be overcome with good negotiations (not debate) in order to reach a mutually agreeable consensus among four people.
I'll throw my personal list out followed by what the group (sort of) agreed to:
Most honorable: Bob
Next: John
Next: Bill
Next: Jane
Our group had some real difficulties and pretty much split 2 on 2; in reality, we did not reach a consensus for reasons I'll go into in another post, but here's as close as we could get:
John
Jane
Bob
Bill
{Edited for spelling}
My kids still love me.
Edited by - Garrette on 03/29/2002 10:22:34 |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 10:30:47 [Permalink]
|
Fascinating question, but my rankings would depend a lot on two things we're not told:
1. Jane's reason for wanting to see John, and
2. Bill's reason for not wanting to get involved.
Another important factor we're not told about is how Bill's involvement might have affected the outcome. What's he supposed to do? Shoot Bob dead, take his boat and ferry Jane across the river? Talk to Bob and try to get him to change his mind? Lend Jane money for a large bribe that might make Bob change his terms?
Without the answers to those questions, it's really impossible to make a ranking. Jane could be on the top or the bottom, depending on her reasons for wanting to see John. Likewise Bill, depending on his motives and (most importantly) how much he could have changed the outcome by intervening. John may be a cad or a wronged man reacting justifiably, depending on Jane's motives.
Without further information, I'm tempted to put Bob on top, simply because we understand his motives clearly; we may not like him, but at least he does honor his commitment. The other three are just a mess.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 11:10:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
1. Jane's reason for wanting to see John, and
2. Bill's reason for not wanting to get involved.
Exactly! Were Jane trying to reach John to save his life, then she selflessly risked losing John by having sex with Bob, and John, in dumping her afterwords, is the selfish moron.
Garette, the only way I could see Bob as being the most honorable, is if Jane was perfectly happy in exchanging sex for passage across the river. Since she declined the first time, we can assume the thought of having sex with Bob was not pleasing. Would an honorable person accept sex as payment in this case?
One may say that there would be nothing dishonorable about Bob taking $100 from a reluctant Jane, but I would dispute any claims that payment = sex = money = anything else used as exchange in this case.
And even then, surely Bob can't be considered honorable for having sex with someone else's girlfriend.
This depends, of course, on whether Bob knew Jane was involved with John.
Great topic Garette! 
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 11:18:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Keep in mind that this was a training session on negotiations. The scenario is not designed with the purpose of getting you to think about honor but to stimulate friction that must be overcome with good negotiations (not debate) in order to reach a mutually agreeable consensus among four people.
It seems to me that the consensus must be on what assumptions to make on the reasons behind the characters' actions.
To assume that Jane just wanted to snuggle? Or to save John's life?
That Bob knew Jane was involved with John, and whether or not there is any honor in exchanging sex for something with a reluctant partner?
That Bill "just didn't feel like helping tonight"? Or was there something going on in Bill's life that needed precidence?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 11:23:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What, other than harm to John, did her telling him about her sex with Bob do?
*Shrugs*
To John, I would say: Buck up, whiner.
My approach to the problem was to, in the absence of enough information, assume the most likely motivations. I can't accept that Jane's reasons are unimportant, or that Bill could not have affected the outcome.
So I assumed that Jane's reasons were fairly important, if not life-threatening, and that Bill could have affected the outcome.
And whether Bob knew that Jane was 'involved' is irrelevent.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Ia Cthulhu! |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 12:00:53 [Permalink]
|
Why is everyone so negative about the poor Bob so much.
He did not do anything dishonorable, did he?
He was completly honest, he was not forcing Jane and he was as far he and we could tell not taking adavantage of any lifethreadtening situation Jane was in.
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 12:21:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Donnie B.:
Without further information, I'm tempted to put Bob on top, simply because we understand his motives clearly; we may not like him, but at least he does honor his commitment. The other three are just a mess.
My thoughts exactly.
Just because I wanna, I'll summarize how our negotiation session went.
First let me note that there were about 20 groups of 4 involved in this training. We were initially allotted 15 minutes to reach consensus, but the actions of my group stretched it to an hour.
In summary, here are the steps we went through:
1. Everyone gave a quick list. Mine and the other male's were similar though not identical. The two females' were similar to each other's but nearly opposite from the males'.
2. We began discussion (it wasn't really negotiations), attempting to explain our reasoning.
3. It quickly became apparent to me that the discussions were going nowhere so I suggested that we "average" our lists by assigning numerical weights to the rankings. This resulted in the list given in my previous post.
4. Everyone accepted this list for about two minutes. Then one female reconsidered and said she simply could not stomach a list that did not put Bob on the bottom.
5. We attempted to convince her that sticking to the agreement was a good compromise. She refused.
6. I suggested we do the "average" again but with the addition that we could add factors to the weighing, i.e., instead of the least honorable being a 1 and the most honorable being a 4, you could say the most honorable is a 10 because he/she is 10 times as honorable as the bottom dweller. This suggestion went nowhere.
---
Now follows the part that got really spirited and which really opened my eyes to a lot of pseudo-skeptics and believers:
I asked the hold out to define "honorable".
She said it didn't matter; I suggested it was all important. She reiterated that it didn't matter and that Bob had to be on top and now Jane had to be on bottom, too.
I said I would agree to any ranking she wanted to give AS LONG AS she defined "honorable" and explained how her ranking was consistent with it.
She refused and called me names.
----
That's how it ended. She got mad. The other female was befuddled. The other male was the husband of the hold out and seemed embarrassed. I was laughing and having quite a good time.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 12:27:24 [Permalink]
|
But if we make it a question legitimately about the 'honor rankings', I agree that there really isn't enough info.
My thinking is like this:
Bob may be slime, but he was completely straightforward and honest.
John was not at all 'un-honest' or 'unhonorable' but was not as forgiving as he might have been. I was assuming he and Jane had an implied commitment to each other, or a contract. John was not wrong to leave the relationship when Jane broke the contract, but he failed to be a 'good creditor' in that he did not allow that Jane broke the contract in good faith.
Bill also had an implied contract or commitment with Jane by virtue of being a good, lifelong friend. Part of such a contract is "backing your buddy" or just helping out when asked unless to do so would be wrong. Since it would not have been wrong to do so, Bill didn't hold up his end of the bargain.
Jane was least honorable in that she knowingly violated her commitment to John. Absent knowledge that mitigates the action, it makes her the least honorable. (Note that I do not call her dishonorable, just the least honorable of the four given this scenario).
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 12:32:25 [Permalink]
|
Seems Bob had a service and asked for payment. Bob received payment and rendered service.
Jane could have said no, and found other means across. There are other methods to crossing a river, though less safe. Were it really that important, even travel out of the way, to me anyway, would be preferable.
Bill is pretty much a non-entity. His reasons for not helping are moot, whether he could and wouldn't or could not help.
John, well his decision.
Jane, definitely belongs on the bottom. She appears to have made the conscious decision to compromise her values/morality, I dunno what you want to call it. That compromise, when there are, to me anyway, other alternatives that might be more palatable gives her the fourth slot.
Bill, too nebulous, so by default I'd have to assign him third.
John, again nebulous, tho acting in accordance with his conscious, second.
Bob, as horrible as it sounds, offered a service asked for payment and rendered service upon payment. By default first.
---
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
<i>No Sense of Obligation</i> by Matt Young |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 12:35:57 [Permalink]
|
You said it better than I did, Trish.
Though I think the analysis stands even without adding ghost 'alternatives' to crossing the river. The scenario offered none and implied there weren't any.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
